Jump to content

User:Draco741/Acyl halide/Publicscale Peer Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

General info

[edit]
Whose work are you reviewing?

Jaimin - @Draco741

Link to draft you're reviewing

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/User:Draco741/new_sandbox

Link to the current version of the article (if it exists)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Acyl_halide

Evaluate the drafted changes

[edit]

Hello Jaimin,

Below is my peer review for your draft for changes to the Wikipedia article - Acyl Halide.


Lead

N/A - There is no change to the lead for the Acyl Halide article in your sandbox draft. I look forward to your changes. I think the current lead is quite concise, but some context (e.g. where these functional groups can be find) can be added.

Content

  • Is the content added relevant to the topic?

Yes.

- Gilman/Grignard reagents and LAH are valid reactants with Acyl Halides.

- I agree with you that "lachrymatory" is a grandstanding description.

- Explanation of hydrogen halide.

- The elaboration to explain that Acyl Halide itself is corrosive is good; the Nucleophilic Acyl Substitution explanation is good.

  • Is the content added up-to-date?

There do not seem to be new or up-to-date info for the original article nor the sandbox draft.

  • Is there content that is missing or content that does not belong?

- You can definitely add an image or two to showcase these chemicals.

- Can you explain the reagents (Grignard/Gilman) just very briefly for the general public? No one with a high school education knows them. I think simply by using chemical structures, they could understand a little better.

  • Does the article deal with one of Wikipedia's equity gaps? Does it address topics related to historically underrepresented populations or topics?

No, I do not think this article has anything to do with subjective subjects.

Tone/Balance

  • Is the content added neutral?

The tone is quite neutral. I think the added explanations are needed.

  • Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

No.

  • Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

- You can explain the added reagents more.

  • Does the content added attempt to persuade the reader in favor of one position or away from another?

No.

Sources/References

Unfortunately, the references on the sandbox seem to be from the original article. I do not see any new links or references added to anything. Citing would help back your content.

Organisation

  • Is the content added well-written - i.e. Is it concise, clear, and easy to read?

- I think "aromatic ketone" is more descriptive than "aromatic compound" (Reactions section). Aromatic compound is too general and is not the precise product of Friedel-Crafts Acylation.

- The added Gilman/Grignard reagents part is a good touch.

- I like the simplification done to the term "lachrymatory".

- Although I agree that "hydrohalic and organic acids" from the original article is extravagant and poorly worded, your explanation of hydrogen halide being "HX" is, in my opinion, a little excessive and does not quite get to point: hydrogen halide is a strong acid that is dangerous.

- I like your added explanation using the mechanism Nucleophilic Acyl Substitution; I do not like the statement "Most acyl halides are also corrosive and can cause severe burns to the skin and severely damage the eyes.". It can be written and structured better.

  • Does the content added have any grammatical or spelling errors?

Gilman reagents, not "Gilmans reagent". Also do not use multiple "and" for a single sentence.

  • Is the content added well-organized - i.e. broken down into sections that reflect the major points of the topic?

No - please consider organising in sub-headings.

Overall

  • Has the content added improved the overall quality of the article - i.e. Is the article more complete?

At this point, the sandbox draft improves the original article very slightly. I like some of the added explanations.

  • What are the strengths of the content added?

I enjoy the explanations you made; the Gilman/Grignard/LAH are good examples to give different products.

  • How can the content added be improved?

Please explain the reagents you added. They require better explanations - Grignard Reagent adding twice to give a tertiary alcohol is not trivial or intuitive. Also, I think adding LAH twice to acyl halide should yield a primary alcohol, not a secondary alcohol.

Please consider adding citations to your explanations and examples.

Please refer to other suggestions in the Organisation and Content sections.


Sincerely,

Winston - @Publicscale